Helicopter owner awarded damages after wire-strike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West of zero
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I rather think most of you haven’t been thinking this through. What the judge did was to not get hung up on the fact that the pilot was flying low illegally and therefore concluding that he was the only one at fault here. The electricity company failed in its duty of care by not marking these power lines. The judge decided that should not go without consequences. He probably felt that the pilot and his estate had been penalized sufficiently by him getting killed.
The analogy with the bus driver smacking a double-decker into a bridge is nonsense: one can see the bridge and buses have brakes. A much better analogy would be the requirement for frangible light poles along roads. These are required so any vehicles going off the road are not demolished with loss of life on contact with these poles. But vehicles are supposed to be driven on the road, not on sidewalks. This rule does not make it right to install solid steel light poles along roads.
Even if that were substantially cheaper. The judge must have decided that if the electricity consumers don’t want to pay for properly marked lines, they’ll just have to pay for an aircraft every now and then.
The analogy with the bus driver smacking a double-decker into a bridge is nonsense: one can see the bridge and buses have brakes. A much better analogy would be the requirement for frangible light poles along roads. These are required so any vehicles going off the road are not demolished with loss of life on contact with these poles. But vehicles are supposed to be driven on the road, not on sidewalks. This rule does not make it right to install solid steel light poles along roads.
Even if that were substantially cheaper. The judge must have decided that if the electricity consumers don’t want to pay for properly marked lines, they’ll just have to pay for an aircraft every now and then.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting point.
Dare I ask (and I'm not being faecetious, i really don't know) who's responsibility it is to have these wires marked on nav charts? And how much RESPONSIBILITY they indeed have to do so correctly?
Dare I ask (and I'm not being faecetious, i really don't know) who's responsibility it is to have these wires marked on nav charts? And how much RESPONSIBILITY they indeed have to do so correctly?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Oz (guess it is still the case) they used to come out with revisions to the WAC charts which you would have to mark on the map yourself, as it can be some years before a chart reprint with the revisions in place will appear. A most time consuming effort with the hundreds of revisions that there would be on the list.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah we get revisions sent out with our Vol 4 updates, but they are only the ones they KNOW they've missed!
Our charts normally get reprinted yearly, but last lot has only just been done after 18 months, so yeah u do end up with a fairly big list.
I still wonder who is ultimately responsible? Dare I suggest, the pilot...?
Our charts normally get reprinted yearly, but last lot has only just been done after 18 months, so yeah u do end up with a fairly big list.
I still wonder who is ultimately responsible? Dare I suggest, the pilot...?
Buitenzorg says: "The electricity company failed in its duty of care by not marking these power lines."
I don't think it did, necessarily. There are hundreds of power lines like that one strung up around the country in places where low flying aircraft might hit them, and few are marked. There's no law to say they must be marked, and pilots know they're not marked.
It would cost a lot to mark them all, given problems of access over difficult terrain in many areas - wouldn't be impossible, just expensive. Something along the lines of putting pool fences along all natural waterways to stop kids drowning in them - not going to happen.
The situation is analogous to many that exist in other areas - for example, I regularly drive on a fairly narrow, winding mountain road with steep falls at the edge. There's no safety barriers to stop me flying over the edge if I go too fast around a corner, but if I did, I think it would be ridiculous and most likely fruitless for my family to sue the 'owners' of the road (local and state governments) for damages.
I don't think it did, necessarily. There are hundreds of power lines like that one strung up around the country in places where low flying aircraft might hit them, and few are marked. There's no law to say they must be marked, and pilots know they're not marked.
It would cost a lot to mark them all, given problems of access over difficult terrain in many areas - wouldn't be impossible, just expensive. Something along the lines of putting pool fences along all natural waterways to stop kids drowning in them - not going to happen.
The situation is analogous to many that exist in other areas - for example, I regularly drive on a fairly narrow, winding mountain road with steep falls at the edge. There's no safety barriers to stop me flying over the edge if I go too fast around a corner, but if I did, I think it would be ridiculous and most likely fruitless for my family to sue the 'owners' of the road (local and state governments) for damages.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: At home
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I'll ask the question.
Why are we governed by a regulation that stipulates the minimum height above the ground or water that we can operate in?
The reason must be clear to most of us and I can only conclude that the court had a minimal appreciation of consequences of the reality of such reckless flight. It begs the question of who might have been enjoined in the responsibility had this unfortunate individual flown into the side of a hill!
STL
Why are we governed by a regulation that stipulates the minimum height above the ground or water that we can operate in?
The reason must be clear to most of us and I can only conclude that the court had a minimal appreciation of consequences of the reality of such reckless flight. It begs the question of who might have been enjoined in the responsibility had this unfortunate individual flown into the side of a hill!
STL
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry,
I agree this is the wrong decision by the judge and my sympathy not only goes out to the passengers of the aircraft but the groom waiting for his bride to arrive for their big day.
Where to you draw the line should the company have put illuminated markers up for those breaking the rules at night,or should they have ensured the lines were buried beneath the ground to make them even more safe.
Sadly for those mentioned the pilot broke the law and if he hadn't two people would have had a great day.
You could argue that the rule about what height you can fly at is not only to protect the aircraft but also people and property on the ground.
I hope the power company counter sue for the damage to their property.
On a lighter note I am going to ensure we leave an item of clothing on our washing line just in case somebody decides to low fly through my garden.
Again sorry to those that loss their lives and to the groom for the loss of his bride
I agree this is the wrong decision by the judge and my sympathy not only goes out to the passengers of the aircraft but the groom waiting for his bride to arrive for their big day.
Where to you draw the line should the company have put illuminated markers up for those breaking the rules at night,or should they have ensured the lines were buried beneath the ground to make them even more safe.
Sadly for those mentioned the pilot broke the law and if he hadn't two people would have had a great day.
You could argue that the rule about what height you can fly at is not only to protect the aircraft but also people and property on the ground.
I hope the power company counter sue for the damage to their property.
On a lighter note I am going to ensure we leave an item of clothing on our washing line just in case somebody decides to low fly through my garden.
Again sorry to those that loss their lives and to the groom for the loss of his bride
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oz. Mahgni
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep! A 100 bucks could have marked that wire and saved those lives. Cheap!
Now multiply a 100 bucks by the number of spans in Australia and the resulting amount is anything but cheap.
A tragic accident but a ridiculous decision.
Had this poor military pilot been trained as well about wires as us dumb ol' redneck cropdusters this would never have happened.
Now multiply a 100 bucks by the number of spans in Australia and the resulting amount is anything but cheap.
A tragic accident but a ridiculous decision.
Had this poor military pilot been trained as well about wires as us dumb ol' redneck cropdusters this would never have happened.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure I should read in here as not a pilot or a lawyer but never mind.
From my reading of the accident report the pilot was qualified to fly at low level providing he had checked the route first and notified the relevant authorities. He certainly hadn't notified the authorities and it was thought he hadn't checked the route either. However as part of the accident report it says even if he had checked the route he is likely not to have noticed the power lines anyway. It also states that the power company had previously been notifed of the danger posed by this particular line and they choose to do nothing about it.
My guess would be the fact that the power company had previously been notified of a problem with this specific line may be way the Court found in favour of the claimant.
From my reading of the accident report the pilot was qualified to fly at low level providing he had checked the route first and notified the relevant authorities. He certainly hadn't notified the authorities and it was thought he hadn't checked the route either. However as part of the accident report it says even if he had checked the route he is likely not to have noticed the power lines anyway. It also states that the power company had previously been notifed of the danger posed by this particular line and they choose to do nothing about it.
My guess would be the fact that the power company had previously been notified of a problem with this specific line may be way the Court found in favour of the claimant.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being trained and qualified (it is an endorsement in Oz) to operate at low level doesn't mean you can do it whenever you like.
I can't remember the regs, but I recall it says something along the lines of only being under 500' when necessary for the job in hand.
Still a tragedy though.
I can't remember the regs, but I recall it says something along the lines of only being under 500' when necessary for the job in hand.
Still a tragedy though.
Originally Posted by wobs
it is an endorsement in Oz
Most (all?) low level approvals from CASA require the pilot to have completed the low level syllabus of the Ag or Mustering endorsement.
I would tend to agree with ChrisGr31's assessment on this one. Primarily, the power company were alerted to the fact that low level flights were happening in this area - this created the scenario of such an incident being reasonably foreseeable thus requiring some measures to prevent it happening.
The fact that the damages awarded were so low would indicate that the Judge took into account the fact that the pilot was also a contributory in so far as he was flying lower than he should have been.
It would be interesting to know how costs were awarded.
The fact that the damages awarded were so low would indicate that the Judge took into account the fact that the pilot was also a contributory in so far as he was flying lower than he should have been.
It would be interesting to know how costs were awarded.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it isn't. There is a low level syllabus in the Ag endorsement, and the same in the Mustering endorsement. There is no stand alone low level endorsement in Australia.
Most (all?) low level approvals from CASA require the pilot to have completed the low level syllabus of the Ag or Mustering endorsement.
Most (all?) low level approvals from CASA require the pilot to have completed the low level syllabus of the Ag or Mustering endorsement.
Further to John Eacott's quote above, that approval means that one can only indulge in LL flying if one is employed by a company which has the authority's approval in an AOC for LL Air-work ops.
Also they must have the land owners approval.
In this case the pilot was 6k short of his landing destination, illegaly low flying (without an AOC) and certainly would not have had the land owners (the state road authority) permission to be flying at a mere 90 feet.
I am not too sure which court room the judge was in, how could he have allowed this to proceed??
The power company did make one mistake, that was to put the balls on the replacement line, they should have stuck to the prevailing legislation.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: At home
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhhh, the Australian state of New South Wales court. There's our answer. It's generally difficult to understand their judgements, so this case differs little to most of their others.
The fact is that here was a pilot flying in complete contravention of a law regarding minimum safe height and he paid the ultimate price. It is sad that there will be others who will repeat this tragic event. It would however be better if the next one to do it does it on his/her own though.
STL
The fact is that here was a pilot flying in complete contravention of a law regarding minimum safe height and he paid the ultimate price. It is sad that there will be others who will repeat this tragic event. It would however be better if the next one to do it does it on his/her own though.
STL
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't remember the regs, but I recall it says something along the lines of only being under 500' when necessary for the job in hand.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Antipodes
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hold yer quick ill informed tongues
As usual, there those who are above fault or error, spouting on against the dead.
I'm proud to say Huw was a best mate, a professional well experienced aviator and a thoroughly decent chap.
I helped clean up the wreckage of the helicopter and supported the shattered families. Standing amidst the charred components and clothing, I also wondered how the f**k could this this happen to such a pilot, a commando pilot, on such a important day.
It wasn't a charter, but a private flight, so stow your AOC debate.
He was low, but he was on approach to land in a field. A parent had dropped them off at the departure point, so he was allowing time for the parent to return to the farm and be present for the daughter's arrival at the wedding.
He had flown a recce the previous day with his wife, to prove the route and the timing. Indeed to check if the the whole plan to fly the bride to the wedding would be suitable and practicable.
And he hit an 'alpine' style cable...a single three strand cable, slung between two low hills, such that the two poles and most of the cable was below tree level. Except the section of cable that was over the saddle...and the Holbrook - Jingelic Road which was his tracking feature.
So yes he was low, but not irresponsibly, or stupidly as previous authors have tendered.
As for the NSW Court decision...$160k against the power company that local aviators had previously asked to highlight the wire???...fortunately I'm not in the judiciary but for the record, I support the decision. $160k to the helicopter owner doesn't return his cousins.
Nor will it ever clear the memories of a charred headset, torn shoe or the distraught widow staring at the wreckage.
I'm proud to say Huw was a best mate, a professional well experienced aviator and a thoroughly decent chap.
I helped clean up the wreckage of the helicopter and supported the shattered families. Standing amidst the charred components and clothing, I also wondered how the f**k could this this happen to such a pilot, a commando pilot, on such a important day.
It wasn't a charter, but a private flight, so stow your AOC debate.
He was low, but he was on approach to land in a field. A parent had dropped them off at the departure point, so he was allowing time for the parent to return to the farm and be present for the daughter's arrival at the wedding.
He had flown a recce the previous day with his wife, to prove the route and the timing. Indeed to check if the the whole plan to fly the bride to the wedding would be suitable and practicable.
And he hit an 'alpine' style cable...a single three strand cable, slung between two low hills, such that the two poles and most of the cable was below tree level. Except the section of cable that was over the saddle...and the Holbrook - Jingelic Road which was his tracking feature.
So yes he was low, but not irresponsibly, or stupidly as previous authors have tendered.
As for the NSW Court decision...$160k against the power company that local aviators had previously asked to highlight the wire???...fortunately I'm not in the judiciary but for the record, I support the decision. $160k to the helicopter owner doesn't return his cousins.
Nor will it ever clear the memories of a charred headset, torn shoe or the distraught widow staring at the wreckage.